Abw31 779 Aa by 17717 NOW If One Forgot a Pot" on Shabbat Eve Atop A

Perek III Daf 38 Amud a NOTES ,If one forgot a potN on Shabbat eve atop a stove and it cooked on Shabbat שָׁכַח ְדֵ יָ אה עַל גַּבֵּ י ִ ּכיָ אה וּבִ ּשְׁלָה This is a case : שׁ ָ ַ כ ח ְ דֵ י ָ אה – what is the ruling in that case? Is one permitted to eat that food, or not?He One forgot a pot where a person placed a pot on top of a stove ּבַּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ? ֵּ אִישְׁתי וְלָא אָמַא was silent and did not say a thing to him. The next day, he emerged and -with the intention of removing it before night לֵ ּיה וְלָ א מִ ידֵ יד לְמָחָ א נְ ַ׳ דְּ אַשׁ לְ הוּ: publicly taught them the following halakha: With regard to one who cooks fall but forgot to do so. When the Gemara speaks H ּהַמְבַשֵׁל ּבַּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁ ֹוגֵג – יֹאכַל, on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it, and if he cooked in- of doing so intentionally, it is a case where one . לח tentionally, he may not eat it; and the halakha is no different. remembered before nightfall and nevertheless בְּמֵ זִיד – לֹא יֹאכַ ל, וְלָ א שׁ ְ נָאד failed to remove the pot from the stove. In either The last part of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba’s statement is unclear. The Gemara case, one did not even perform an act prohibited מַ אי ‘וְלָ א שׁ ְ נָא? ַ אבָּ ה וְ בַ א יֹוסֵ ב דְּ אָ מְ ִ אי .(asks: What is the practical halakhic meaning of the phrase: And it is no by rabbinic law (Rashi ַּתְ אוַויְיהוּ לְהֶ ֵּ יתיָ אא: מְבַ ׁ ֵּ של הוּא דְּ ָ א different? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said to interpret the phrase permis- Permissively – : Permissively means: Had לְ הֶ י ּ ֵ תי ָ אא N עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֹאכַל, sively in the following manner: One who cooks is one who performs an Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba sought to prohibit eating ,action. If he did so intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. How- food on which a prohibited labor was performed אֲבָ ל הַ אי דְּלָא ָ א עָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂ ה – .ever, this one who forgot the pot on the stove, who does not perform an he would have expressed himself unambiguously בְּמֵזִיד נַמִ י יֹאכַ לד ַ אב נַחְמָ ן בַּ א יִצְחָ -action, even if he intentionally left the pot on Shabbat eve, hemay also eat Therefore, apparently he intended to permit it (Ad אָמַ א לְאִיסּוּאָא: ּמְבַשֵׁל הוּא דְּלָא deret Eliyahu). the food. However, Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said that the phrase: And it אָתֵ י לְאִ יעֲ א יוּמֵ – בְּשׁ ֹוגֵ ג יֹאכַ ל, אֲבָ ל This :אִ י ֹודֶ ם ּגְזֵ ָ אה – is no different, should be interpretedrestrictively in the following manner: If this was prior to the decree הַ אי דְּאָתֵ י לְאִ יעֲ א יוּמֵ – בְּשׁ ֹוגֵג נַמִ י It is one who cooks who will not come to deceive, as there is no room for phrasing is imprecise. Although there is no dis- לֹא יֹאכַ לד suspicion that a person will intentionally cook on Shabbat. Therefore, if one pute that the baraita preceded the decree, there is a possibility that perhaps this Sage held that no cooks unwittingly, he may eat it. However, one who would come to de- such decree was issued (Ramban). ceive, intentionally leaving the pot on the stove and saying: I forgot it, the Sages penalize him and decree that if he did so unwittingly as well, he may HALAKHA not eat it. : הַ מְ בַ ׁ ֵּ של ַבּ ׁ ַּ ש ָבּ ת – One who cooks on Shabbat The Gemara raises an objection to this statement from that which was If one unwittingly cooks on Shabbat for himself מֵ יתִ יבֵי: שָׁכַח ְדֵ יָ אה עַל גַּבֵּי ִ ּכיָ אה taught in a baraita: One who forgot a potH atop a stove and it cooked on or for others, it is prohibited to eat the food on Shabbat itself but it may be eaten immediately ּוּבִישְׁלָה ּבַּשַׁבָּת, בְּשֹׁוגֵג – יֹאכַל, Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat it; if he did so intentionally, -after Shabbat. If one cooks the food intention בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֹאכַלד ּבַּמֶה דְּבָאִים he may not eat it. In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where ally, others may eat it after Shabbat. However, it אֲ מוִּ אים – בְּחַ ִּ מין שֶׁ ּלֹא הוּחַ ּמוּ ּכָל the pot contains hot water that was not yet completely heated, and the is prohibited forever for the one who cooked the same applies to cooked food that was not yet completely cooked. How- food. The halakha was decided on the basis of צֹואְּכָן, וְתַבְשִׁיל ּשֶׁלֹא ּבִּישֵׁל ּכָל ever, if it contains hot water that was already completely heated and explicit cases from other sources (Rambam Sefer צֹוְ א ּכֹוד אֲבָ ל חַ ִּ מין שׁ ֶ הוּחַ ּמוּ לָּ כ צֹוְ א ָ ּכן ,cooked food that was already completely cooked, whether the pot was Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 3:4, 6:23; Shulĥan Arukh וְתַ בְשׁ ִ יל שׁ ֶבִּ ׁ ֵּ ישל לָּ כ צֹוְ א ּכֹו, בֵּ ין בְּשׁ ֹוגֵ ג Oraĥ Ĥayyim 318:1). left thereunwittingly , or whether the pot was left thereintentionally, one בֵּ ין בְּמֵ זִ יד – יֹאכַ ל, דִּבְ ֵ אי אַבִּ י מֵאִ יר. -If one inten : שׁ ָ ַ כ ח ְ דֵ י ָ אה – may eat it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. One who forgot a pot tionally left a pot of food on a stove on Shabbat, Rabbi Yehuda says that there is a distinction: Hot water that was already it is prohibited for him to eat the food until after א יַבִּ היְהוּדָ אֹומֵ א: חַ ִּ מין שׁ ֶ הוּחַ ּמוּ ָ ּכל completely heated is permitted because,in that case, the longer it remains Shabbat (Magen Avraham). Others rule that before צֹוְ א ָ ּכן – ָּמוּתִ אין, מִ ְּ ׳נֵי שׁ ֶ ּמִצְטַ ֵּמ וְ ַ אע on the fire, the more it shrivels, i.e., evaporates, and deteriorates. In that eating the food, he must wait after Shabbat the לֹוד וְתַבְשִׁיל ּשֶׁבִּישֵׁל ָלּכ צֹוְ אּכֹו – case, one would certainly not come to increase the heat because he would amount of time it takes to cook that food (Rema). If one placed food that was not completely cooked not want to lose more water through evaporation. However, cooked food אָ סוּא, מִ ּ׳ְנֵי שֶׁ ּמִצְטַ ֵּמ וְיָ ֶה׳ לֹו, וְכֹל on a stove on Friday and he forgot and left the pot הַ ּמִצְטַ ֵּמ וְ יָ ֶ ה׳ לֹו, ְ ּכגֹון ְּכאוּב וּ׳ֹולִ ים that was completely cooked, it is prohibited to leave it on the firebecause on the stove, the food may not be eaten until after it shrivels and improves. There is room for concern that he will stoke the Shabbat. If the food was completely cooked before וּבָשָׂ א טָ אוּב – אָ סוּא, וְכָל הַ ּמִצְטַ ֵּמ coals to increase the heat under the food. And there is a general principle: Shabbat, one may eat it on Shabbat, as per the וְ ַ עא לֹו – ָּמוּתאד Anything that shrivels and improves, e.g., cabbage, and beans, and meat opinion of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak as supported cut into small piecesB is prohibited; and anything that shrivels and dete- by the baraita (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot riorates is permitted. Shabbat 3:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 253:1). In any event, it was taught in that baraita that in the case of cooked food BACKGROUND ָתָנֵי מִיהָא: ּתַבְשִׁיל ּשֶׁלֹא ּבִּישֵׁל Some : בָ ּ ָשׂ א טָ א ּו ב – that was not completely cooked, if it was cooked unwittingly, it is permit- Meat cut into small pieces ָלּכ צֹוְ אּכֹו, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַב נַחְמָן בַּ א ted. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak, this explain that the meat was chopped finely to be יִצְחָ לָ א ַשׁ ְיָא: ָ ּכאן – ֹודֶ ם ּגְזֵ ָ אה, is not difficult.Although there is an apparent contradiction, as he prohibits mixed into a soup or a stew. Therefore, the more eating from a pot that was unwittingly forgotten on the stove, and the ba- the meat is cooked, the better it mixes into the ּכָאן – לְאַחַ א ּגְזֵ ָ אהד אֶ ּלָא אַבָּ ה וְ ַ אב .(raita prohibits it only when it was left intentionally, he could explain the dish (Arukh יֹוסֵב דְּאָמְאִי ּלְהֶיתֵיאָא, אִי ֹודֶם following: Here, the baraita, which permits eating it, was taught prior to ּגְזֵ ָ אה – ַשׁ ְ יָא מֵ זִ יד, אִ י לְאַחַ א ּגְזֵ ָ אה – the decree that was issued lest a person act deceitfully, whereas there, the ְ ַשׁ י ָ אנ ַ ִ מ ישׁ ֹו ֵ ג ג ! ַ שׁ ְ ָ י א ד halakha of Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak, was taught after the decree, which prohibited eating food even if it was forgotten unwittingly. However, according to the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef, who said to interpret the phrase permissively, whether he left it on the stove unwittingly or he did so intentionally, it is difficult.If this baraita was taught prior to the decree,N the ruling with regard to when he did so intentionally is difficult,as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food even in that case. If this baraita was taught after the decree, the ruling with regard to when he did so unwittingly is also difficult, as Rabba and Rav Yosef permit eating the food in every case.

Load more